Newborn stars, hidden behind thick dust, are revealed in this image of a section of the Christmas Tree Cluster from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, created in joint effort between Spitzer's Infrared Array Camera (IRAC) and Multiband Imaging Photometer (MIPS) instruments.

The newly revealed infant stars appear as pink and red specks toward the center of the combined IRAC-MIPS image (left panel). The stars appear to have formed in regularly spaced intervals along linear structures in a configuration that resembles the spokes of a wheel or the pattern of a snowflake. Hence, astronomers have nicknamed this the "Snowflake Cluster."

Star-forming clouds like this one are dynamic and evolving structures. Since the stars trace the straight line pattern of spokes of a wheel, scientists believe that these are newborn stars, or "protostars." At a mere 100,000 years old, these infant structures have yet to "crawl" away from their location of birth. Over time, the natural drifting motions of each star will break this order, and the snowflake design will be no more.

As for the supposed sun producing starlings. From what I know that will be highly unlikely that it will ever happen.What will the sun even use to create these mini stars if all it has is super heated hydrogen plasma used in the fusion process that will just evaporate when it leaves the heat and pressure of the sun.

When the Teachers say that the Sun is not hot does that mean that it is really cold, or is there some deeper meaning behind that statement? Dr. D. H. Menzel of Harvard Observatory gives reasons to believe that the part of the Sun's Corona very near the surface of the sun is intensely heated, far more so than the surface itself. Does this explain the apparent heat of the surface?

The sun is a body of power, a ball of energy, or rather of energies, and is no more hot as such than is a block of ice, although of course even a block of ice has some heat as compared with something still colder.

Thus, electricity is neither hot nor cold, although it can chill things and heat things, with proper mechanical apparatus. Sunlight is neither hot nor cold, although because it is energy, it can set up movement in the molecules and atoms of the bodies on which it falls, like our skin, or a rock, or the side of a house, and thus give us the impression that the sunlight is hot. It is like electricity, which, because of the response of the metal through which it passes, heats the metal red hot, which therefore gives heat. But the electricity is not hot, no more than the energies coming from the sun are hot.

Most of the heat on our earth actually arises from magnetic and electric interplay between the earth itself and that marvelous continent above our heads, as the Master says.

The earth gets very little heat direct from the sun, as compared, I mean with the heat generated in the manner above explained between the earth and the meteoric continent above our heads.

Now, turning to the sun, the sun as a body of forces is cold, and yet I hate to use this word, as it does not give the meaning. As a body of forces it is neither hot nor cold. Temperature does not enter into the picture. Temperature arises out of the play of forces on resisting media. But and here is the important point what you might call the sun's outer garment, not near the sun but around the surface of the sun, what science means when it speaks of the corona, can be heated by chemical and alchemical action to great heat, or to less heat, or to no heat at all, in spots, according to circumstances.

Thus we might say that the sun itself is neither hot nor cold, being just a body of forces. But these forces in their interplay with the garments of the sun, call them gases if you like, or ethers, can produce actual heat, as we understand heat. This means that the sun's forces playing and interplaying on the atoms and molecules of these garments of the sun, can at times, and usually do in spots or in areas, vast areas too, make heat, even great heat. But this heat has very little to do with heating the earth. It is simply radiated into space, or sucked in again towards the body of the sun, and is dissipated.

Thus the sun is neither hot nor cold. It is neutral to these two adjectives, so to speak; but the sun's outer garments can be and usually are, sometimes more, sometimes less, very hot, sometimes not hot at all, according to the way the forces play and interplay at this time or some future time, or did in some past time.

Share on other sites

NeoGenesis 0

Thus, electricity is neither hot nor cold, although it can chill things and heat things, with proper mechanical apparatus. Sunlight is neither hot nor cold, although because it is energy, it can set up movement in the molecules and atoms of the bodies on which it falls, like our skin, or a rock, or the side of a house, and thus give us the impression that the sunlight is hot. It is like electricity, which, because of the response of the metal through which it passes, heats the metal red hot, which therefore gives heat. But the electricity is not hot, no more than the energies coming from the sun are hot.

He is correct there.

Most of the heat on our earth actually arises from magnetic and electric interplay between the earth itself and that marvelous continent above our heads, as the Master says.

He has it terribly wrong there.To explain this in a practical manner.If the earth got most of its heat from itself than we will not have these huge changes in the seasons.

The earth gets very little heat direct from the sun, as compared, I mean with the heat generated in the manner above explained between the earth and the meteoric continent above our heads.

Now, turning to the sun, the sun as a body of forces is cold, and yet I hate to use this word, as it does not give the meaning. As a body of forces it is neither hot nor cold. Temperature does not enter into the picture. Temperature arises out of the play of forces on resisting media. But and here is the important point what you might call the sun's outer garment, not near the sun but around the surface of the sun, what science means when it speaks of the corona, can be heated by chemical and alchemical action to great heat, or to less heat, or to no heat at all, in spots, according to circumstances.

Thus we might say that the sun itself is neither hot nor cold, being just a body of forces. But these forces in their interplay with the garments of the sun, call them gases if you like, or ethers, can produce actual heat, as we understand heat. This means that the sun's forces playing and interplaying on the atoms and molecules of these garments of the sun, can at times, and usually do in spots or in areas, vast areas too, make heat, even great heat. But this heat has very little to do with heating the earth. It is simply radiated into space, or sucked in again towards the body of the sun, and is dissipated.

Thus the sun is neither hot nor cold. It is neutral to these two adjectives, so to speak; but the sun's outer garments can be and usually are, sometimes more, sometimes less, very hot, sometimes not hot at all, according to the way the forces play and interplay at this time or some future time, or did in some past time.

His theory on the sun is full of holes from my point of view.The Sun is a giant thermo-nuclear fusion reactor there however are forces prevalent as he stated.Magnetism and Gratify as well as other forces.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Captain Zim 41

As for the supposed sun producing starlings. From what I know that will be highly unlikely that it will ever happen.What will the sun even use to create these mini stars if all it has is super heated hydrogen plasma used in the fusion process that will just evaporate when it leaves the heat and pressure of the sun.

Just to point out that fusion could occur in places where the magnetic field pinches hydrogen and helium to fusion point, and maybe deuterium if in high enough concentration, but it would still require the magnetic field of the parent star to produce. Sort of like making armpit farts. Anyway, just to clarify what Neo is saying, most fusion occurs deep beneath the sun's surface where there is actually pressure and heat enought to overcome the resistance necessary for fusion.

I've heard alternate theories for stellar fusion and power but this one's really bad. As for meteors, well we can tell from the isotope ratios that they are pretty old and are not produced constantly by the sun. In fact, the trajectory is all wrong and we should see them being spat out as vapour and constantly infalling again if this were true. They cannot accrete from smaller dust fragments like snowballs because dust is subject to tangential radiation pressure which sucks it into the sun anyway.